State v. Valdez

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) CHRISTOPHER ALLEN VALDEZ, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 11/30/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL No. 1 CA-CR 09-0638 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-008352-001 DT The Honorable John R. Hannah, Judge CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Sharmila Roy Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Laveen B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Christopher Allen Valdez appeals from his convictions and sentences for misconduct involving weapons. Counsel for Valdez filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). requests Finding that error. this Valdez no court was arguable search granted issues the the to raise, record for counsel fundamental opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against Valdez. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). reversible error, we affirm the convictions as Finding no well as the resulting sentences, as modified herein. ¶3 Valdez was indicted on two counts of misconduct involving weapons, class 4 felonies, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-3102 (Supp. 2010). 1 The indictment alleged that Valdez knowingly possessed a pipe bomb, a prohibited weapon (count one), and that he possessed the pipe bomb as a prohibited possessor (count two). The following evidence was presented at trial. ¶4 In August 2007, surveillance at a hotel. Detective Noyd was conducting A Toyota Camry vehicle entered the 1 Absent material revisions after the date offense, we cite the statute's current version. 2 of an alleged parking lot and several people [got] in and out. Because that particular make of vehicle is often reported stolen, Noyd had another officer check its status. that the registered owner of After obtaining information the Camry, Valdez, had an outstanding warrant, Noyd called for patrol units to assist in making a stop as he observed the vehicle leave the parking lot. ¶5 Officer Petersen responded to the call and followed the Camry into a residential neighborhood. of the Camry Petersen began advised to them exit to after stay in When the occupants pulling the into vehicle. a driveway, The driver retreated back into the vehicle but another passenger and Valdez continued moving away from the vehicle toward a house. Petersen noticed Valdez was carrying a small gray object in his left hand. Petersen ordered him to stop, but Valdez refused. Valdez was between two cars in the driveway when Petersen lost sight of him momentarily. After Valdez reappeared, Petersen noticed that the gray object was no longer in his hands. Valdez then complied with Petersen s request to stop and was placed under arrest. ¶6 When backup units responded, area where Valdez had stopped. Petersen searched the Under a bush near the home, Petersen found the gray object, which appeared to be a case for sunglasses. When he opened it, he discovered a pipe bomb. bomb squad was called to the scene to detonate the bomb. 3 The A forensic scientist testified that the bomb particles contained an explosive double-base smokeless gunpowder. A jury found Valdez guilty of both counts. 2 ¶7 Valdez stipulated to five prior convictions, and the trial court found that two of convictions. them qualified as historical prior felony The court then sentenced Valdez to a mitigated term of eight years for each count, to be served concurrently, and granted 623 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶8 We have searched the entire record for fundamental error and find none, other than a sentencing error. the trial court incarceration receive the correctly credit credit on on concurrent sentences. applied count both one, counts Valdez s Valdez because presentence was the Although eligible court to imposed See State v. Cruz-Mata, 138 Ariz. 370, 375, 674 P.2d 1368, 1373 (1983) (crediting appellants for time spent in presentence custody to each concurrent sentence). Thus, we modify Valdez s sentencing minute entry to reflect 623 days of presentence incarceration credit to be applied to counts one and two. ¶9 All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Valdez was present and represented 2 by The record shows counsel or At trial, the parties stipulated that Valdez prohibited possessor on the date of the incident. 4 advisory was a counsel 3 at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentences imposed were within statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm Valdez s convictions and sentences as modified herein. ¶10 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Valdez of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Valdez shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge /s/ _________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 3 Valdez represented himself for the first two days of trial, with advisory counsel. Thereafter, at Valdez s request, advisory counsel represented him for the remainder of the trial. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.